By Jamie Bryson
The so-called ‘Stormont brake’ has been exposed for the con-trick it always was, as some of us repeatedly pointed out, only to be shouted down by those who knew better. Those who championed the Brake as their tool for “cutting the pipeline of EU law”. The decision by the Secretary of State (who owes his loyalty not to this UK Union, but rather to the European Union) is simply another stage in the cycle of ritually humiliating the unionist community.
This Government believes they can get away with doing so because they know the DUP are fundamentally weak on the Union, and the moment they surrendered the only leverage unionism had to return to Stormont as Protocol-implementers, that sent out the message that there was no price the present largest unionist party wouldn’t pay.
They returned to Stormont, divided unionism and enthroned the IRA/Sinn Fein First Minister. But not to worry they claimed, the DUP’s deal had removed the Irish Sea border and via the powerful new tool they had secured- the so called ‘Stormont Brake’- they had “cut the pipeline of EU law”. It was further claimed their new ‘constitutional legislation’ they had undone the subjugation of the Acts of Union as established in the Allister case. In the case brought by this writer in December 2024, that was also exposed as nonsense, the High Court confirming that far be it from reversing the Allister ruling, the DUP’s ‘constitutional legislation’ had in fact embedded it.
The DUP had abandoned their central falsehoods only a few months later, transitioning from claiming they had removed the Irish Sea border, to claiming it would be gone by the Autumn. As was obvious it would, Autumn came and gone with far be it from the Irish Sea border being removed, but rather it being hardened both GB-NI and vice versa.
That prompted the DUP’s end of year message to be that it was their objective to remove the same Irish Sea border they had removed in January 2024; end the application of EU law they had cut the pipeline of in January 2024; and restore NI to the UK internal market, despite having also- they once claimed- done that in January 2024. They are so confused in their own position, it is difficult to keep up.
In the rigged consent vote, unionism was ritually humiliated, going through the process of legitimising a ‘consent vote’ which, it was claimed, was for the continued imposition of a Protocol designed to “protect the Belfast Agreement in all its parts”, despite disapplying the core safeguards to the detriment of unionists.
But worse was to come, the DUP championed the independent review they had secured. The Secretary of State then appointed fellow Europhile Lord Murphy to conduct it, and made clear that any ‘solutions’ or changes to the Protocol required cross community consent. Put simply; cross community consent is disapplied so the Protocol and Irish Sea border can be forced upon unionism, but cross community consent is required (thus handing nationalism a veto) to remove the injustice.
As if the DUP’s fable of falsehoods, which Donaldson and Gavin Robinson gleefully championed, hadn’t been exposed for what it was enough, today we have the rejection of the Stormont Brake, making a mockery of the DUP’s claims to have a ‘powerful weapon’ to stop harmful EU law (as well known constitutional law scholar David Brooks MLA advised us writing in February in the Newsletter). I could take a trip to Smyths toys this afternoon and purchase a toy steering wheel and brake; pulling it to try and stop my car as I head into oncoming traffic is about as sensible as the DUP claiming they had a brake to halt EU law.
Those of us who pointed out the lies were laughed at, mocked and derided, but today the collaborators stand exposed. They surrendered unionism’s leverage, became willing Protocol/Irish Sea border implementers, and did so claiming to have secured ‘powerful tools’ to use within the institutions to fight the continued harm of NI being left under colonial EU rule.
But there is a fundamental problem; for those who claimed the Stormont Brake was sufficient reason to return to Stormont and operate the Executive, what justification do you now offer?
This is a seminal moment for unionism. At what point, if ever, will even the weakest of unionists, those who are willing collaborators in a Protocol-implementing Executive, say enough is enough?